bittsen

Don't assume I will agree with you. I don't. If I owned a cache and went on vacation, death in the family, etc... and reeived a note that the cache needed maintenance, I would take the task I promised (myself) to do and either place the cache as no longer active and/or put a note in my log that I would like someone to adopt, remove, maintain, or whatever. It takes a few moments of time to do this. That is assuming I was unable to care for the cache. If I just didn't want to do it anymore, I would remove it and delete it. GC makes it pretty clear when you list a cache that you will be required to maintain it. If you can't maintain it, you should do something about that. As an example, I have wanted to place many caches but know that I wouldn't want to go 30 miles and hike 2 more whenever the cache needed maintenance. You are right, that the caching community helps eachother out, in general. What you forget is that it isn't the GC community to babysit those who place caches, or their caches.

Bittsen, I think the reason why you say that's wrong is because the exchange isn't even? If I do replace the cache I would replace it with a more durable container. You are correct and incorrect. Part of why I wouldn't replace the container is because the person who placed the container is supposed to be responsible for the cache. If they are not going to maintain it then it should be retired. This would allow someone who is more interested in the game to have a place to put a new cache. I believe that once you remove yourself from the game, either by closing your account or by not caring for your caches, you should remove all of the caches you placed. It's just an opinion.

No, it is NOT alright. If it was then it would be OK for people to "replace" all those ammo cans with Tupperware®

Ebay is available in Arizona too.

I read the article and I have to say that the attitudes of those puling caches is appalling. They said if we have time to play a game (implying its a stupid game) then we have time to volunteer to help them out cleaning parks and such. Are we their kids or something? They also have their own values of cemetaries and are trying to force them on everyone. I have to say that it is also appalling to have them push their prudish values on the general populace. The Sheriff said it's not illegal so why are they pulling the caches?

What could possibly be wrong with using a metal detector? I thought of buying one just for GCing

Agreed. My first geocaching experience was also one of teaching someone about geocaching. The friend I was with would get excited looking at the swag that was in the caches and was disappointed by the micros. Micros have a cool aspect to them but it would be nice to have a different icon for them so you could decide whether or not to pursue them.

I'm going on photo's posted to the forums comparing Rite in the Rain vs. regular paper for caches inundated for long periods of time. Rite in the Rain lost. Thus it's not good for long term immersion. Even if it did better than regular paper the mess isn't suitable. I trust Rite in the rain for exactly what it says because I'm going back to a dry office after being in the rain. Now my SWAG on the issue is this. It's made out of coated paper. It can resist water and immersion. But Once water gets inside the coating it turns to mush like paper tends to do. Plus once the water is inside, the coating keeps it inside. Regular paper would dry out faster. http://www.riteintherain.com/ Seems to indicate that they still coat the paper rather than make it out of plastic. I have no doubt your 30 years has taught you far more about paper than I will ever know. In this instance though I'm going to trust the cache evidence, and company "how we make it video" over the sample. I find that interesting. I say "interesting" because the forest department specified rite in rain for a project I did about 5 years ago. They said the "paper" had to last in the field for a minimum of 2 years. That is the only time I have had to print on rite in rain. I suppose, if nothing else, the OP could use tyvek. I will argue to my last breath as to whether tyvek is plastic or paper. I know for solid fact that tyvek is submersible for lots of years. It's not write friendly though so a sharpie (or other solvent based pen) would be needed.

It's paper with a coating. It's not suitable for long term submerision unless they changed how they made it since caching started. However National Geographic Adventure Paper does advertise itself by keeping a submerged topo map printed on it in a bottle in the stores. This would work if the paper wasn't subject to current that would tear it up over time. The sample the paper company was showing was encased in water. They claimed it would last, virtually, forever. I've only been in the printing industry for about 30 years so don't ask me about paper.

There is a material called "Write in rain". It's listed as a paper but its really a plastic. Or as the other poster said, use a piece of plastic and etch the information in it. Keep in mind that magnifying glasses don't work under water.

When I introduced a couple of friends to geocaching, we collected a lot of trash. They thought it was a great thing to do to recover at least one piece of trash from every geocache location. They even went overboard on a couple. It's not dead. Some people just won't do it, no matter the moral incentive.

"Born again" individuals.... Gotta love them.

(deleted by moderator, don't go there)

I have always wondered why they don't reuse them. I am sure it has something to do with keeping a government contractor in business.

At that price you could resell them! Offer 'em for $5 each and you're making a ton of profit, and still below any surplus store! The army surplus store near me sells them 2/$7 when they have them.

That story was BS. The bomb squad has the ability to sniff the "device" for explosive content. Nobody would be held for hours at an airport for a suspected bomb. They would have been detained elsewhere. There are more holes but you get the jist.

12,000 miles would be too crazy. Thats roughly half the circumference of the earth.

Did you have the permission of the aforementioned organizations to use their titles? If yes, then there isn't anything wrong with it. Otherwise, I see why it was bumped. You can't use endorsements unless you actually have the endorsements.

What do you mean by badge?

As long as you tell people in advance that they will need special equipment, there shouldn't be a problem. What pisses people off is going on a mile hike to a place only to find they need special equipment when they get there.

Sadism seems to run deep with geocachers. Whether its a shock of your life with the find or just a cache hidden where it takes an act of gawd to find it, its sadistic. Of course, there are those masochists who live to find such caches. Many who will be scared half to death will enjoy finding the cache. To each their own.

Where would the creativity be? Why should one person be able to claim a historical cache as their own? I can see the rush for people trying to log all the historical caches as their own. BTW, that would just be another name for virtual caches.

Thanks for the suggestion but I wanted to know if GC.com would allow GSAK to interface with it. It was not a GSAK question, per se.

As stated above. It keeps everything in synch. I plan on upgrading my GPS soon with one that has the ability to have more info. Doing everything in GSAK will help keep it all organized since I don't take my computer out in the woods with me. I have both, my finds and my DNFs in GSAK. I just want to keep it organized for my own use.

The decision to keep geocachers off certain public lands has a bt of logic to it. In cases where hunting is allowed, it is disruptive to the hunting if geocachers are going through the hunting grounds making the animals a little edgy. After all, we want Bambi to be calm, relaxed, comfortable right before we blow his head off, right? As for the painballing ban, it would be a good defense for a hunter if he said "I saw something hiding in the bushes and it looked like a deer" when asked why the paintballer was sent to his maker. Now, I don't agree with the bans, but I see the logic. Personally, I find it silly that people can hunt and kill the wildlife but its not cool for people to hunt little treasures while respecting the wildlife. The bottom line is this property is PUBLIC, for PUBLIC use. To limit one kind of public use but not another (especially when it is more destructive) is ridiculous. But, hey, my opinions aren't always the popular ones.